Canon 35mm f2 IS vs Sigma 17-50mm f2.8

WhyFi wrote in post #16888933
Says who? Further, we're not exactly talking about walking around with a 200mm equiv FoV on one hand and a standard zoom on the other - we're talking about a standard zoom vs a standard prime; for decades, many photogs walked around with nothing but a ~50mm, so I find it weird that, on an photography enthusiast site, someone would suggest that it's such an odd choice that it should be dismissed out of hand.

yes, that was certainly true - 30 years ago. Zooms have significantly improved since then, though. Again, yes you CAN use a 50mm prime to "shoot as you go". However, I went to paris a few years ago and took my 20d + 24-70. I was in the midst of upgrading, and what I found was that 24 on a cropper was limiting. I walked throughout the city, including going to notre dame.

Keith_D wrote in post #16888288
That is also $300 more expensive than the other two.

You could actually make the argument that the 18-35 is $300 cheaper because it can take the place of both the 17-50 and 35/2 IS at least if stabilization is not important to the user at those focal lengths.

I own both the 35 IS and canon 17-55 and prefer the 35 IS over it and don't miss the ability to zoom at all but everyone is different. You may find you like having the 17-34 and 36-50 range, me I don't miss it at all and my 17-55 hasn't been used once since getting the 35 IS but, it comes down to you and what you plan to shoot with it.

timbop wrote in post #16889100
yes, that was certainly true - 30 years ago. Zooms have significantly improved since then, though. Again, yes you CAN use a 50mm prime to "shoot as you go". However, I went to paris a few years ago and took my 20d + 24-70. I was in the midst of upgrading, and what I found was that 24 on a cropper was limiting. I walked throughout the city, including going to notre dame.

I'm trying hard, and failing, to see what any of this has to do with anything. You went through Paris (including Notre Dame) and, in the process, learned something about your personal shooting preferences - that's great, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it (if we're keeping score, I took a trip through Europe [Including Paris {and Notre Dame}] with a film body and nothing but a 70-210 - it, too, was limiting, but I'm not going to draw any conclusions from that, either). You said it yourself - everything is limiting. 35 is limiting. 17 is limiting. 50 is limiting. f/2.8 is limiting. Everything is limiting so it's up to the individual, not a presumption of consensus, to decide which compromises work best for them.

At this point, I think that I'll bow out of this part of the conversation and just point out that the poll currently reads approx 80/20 in favor of the 35 (no, I didn't vote), so your notion on general consensus doesn't seem to have a very solid footing.

I won't vote because I don't understand the comparison here. Vote for one of these lenses based on what? Which one's shorter? Which one's heavier? Which one smells better?

Two very different lenses, no?

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16889196
I won't vote because I don't understand the comparison here. Vote for one of these lenses based on what? Which one's shorter? Which one's heavier? Which one smells better?

Two very different lenses, no?

Yes I do know that it is 2 different lens. I know one is zoom and other is prime.. And also I think both are the same price.

My poll is to find out which has better IQ (sorry didn't specify that part)..

I thought the 35mm f2.8 IS is sharper than f2.

That's why I had to find out out which would be better...

Yeah 18-35 f1.8 is sharper , but expensive. so that's out of question.

I was being rather tongue-in-cheek, I'm certain you are aware of the differences

More matter of factly, your clarification is still somewhat muddled by the fact that these are two very different lenses; the only fair IQ comparison is both at 35mm and at comparable apertures.

As it is, we have what is likely a popularity contest of the two, and an unexpected debate about the definition of a "general purpose lens."

Again, tongue-in-cheek.